Search form

Tag: Forests-Sinks

A fair, ambitious and binding deal is needed more urgently than ever. Climate science is more compelling by the day. Impacts are coming harder and faster. Disastrous flooding in Pakistan, heat waves and forest fires in Russia and hottest recorded temperatures around the globe, amongst other devastating climate-related events, all point to the need for urgent action. Levels of warming once thought to be safe, may well not be, 1.5˚C is the new 2˚C.

Negotiations Post-Copenhagen
Copenhagen was a watershed moment for public interest and support for climate action – and people have not lost interest. More people in more countries than ever have put their governments on notice that they expect a fair,
ambitious and binding global deal to be agreed urgently. Trust-building is essential after the disappointment of Copenhagen. Developed country leadership must be at the core of trust building efforts. Countries must show
their commitment to the UNFCCC process by driving it forward with political will and flexible positions, rather than endless rounds of repetitive negotiations. Many countries are troublingly pessimistic for Cancun, and are working to lower expectations. While others, including countries most vulnerable to climate change, maintain high expectations.

Challenges ahead of Cancun
There are many challenges to getting a full fair, ambitious and binding deal at Cancun, including:

Lack of a shared vision for the ultimate objective of the agreement, and the equitable allocation of the remaining carbon budget and emissions reduction/limitation commitments;

Sharp divisions on the legal form of an eventual outcome;

Failure of the US Senate to pass comprehensive legislation this year; and

Current economic difficulties facing many countries, which make it difficult to mobilize the substantial commitments to long-term climate finance needed as part of any ambitious agreement.

Positive moves afoot
However, more and more countries, both developing and developed, are stepping up their efforts to pursue low-carbon development and adaptation, despite the absence of an international agreement. This can be seen in a variety of ways:

Investments in renewable energies have continued their exponential growth, increasing to 19% of global energy consumed;

Progressive countries are working to move the negotiations forward;

There is a growing perception that low-carbon and climate-resilient development is the only option to sustainably ensure the right to development and progress in poverty reduction.

So, what does a pathway forward look like?

Firstly we must learn the lessons of Copenhagen. The “nothing’s agreed until everything’s agreed” dynamic from Copenhagen could mean that nothing would be agreed in Cancun. An agreement in Cancun should instead be a balanced and significant step toward reaching a full fair, ambitious & binding deal at COP 17 in South Africa. This will require parties to work together in good faith to create sufficient gains at Cancun, and a clear roadmap to South Africa. This paper outlines how that could be achieved.

History was created when more than 400,000 people from all walks of life took to the streets of New York City in September to tell the world, ‘More Climate Action, Now’. COP 20 in Lima must be the turning point for political will from governments to reflect these ambitious calls by people from across the world.

At COP 17, Governments agreed to the Durban platform for enhanced action. Negotiations under the Durban platform will culminate in 2015 at COP 21 in Paris, where Parties are to agree to the next stage of a global climate agreement.

COP 20 in Lima holds the key to this next stage as it is set to define the parameters of this 2015 global agreement. The Lima COP, guided by the strong momentum for greater climate action and the recent IPCC scientific assessment, needs to steer political will to deliver decisions on the shape, composition and ambition of the 2015 agreement.

As Lima will set the foundations for the outcomes in Paris, Climate Action Network presents its views on issues that need to be addressed at COP 20 in order to set the right foundation for the 2015 agreement.

COP 20 should urge all countries to revise their pre 2020 mitigation commitments and actions.

COP 20 should mandate ADP to develop a 2-year work plan from 2015-2017 with concrete steps on how the work to close the gap would be undertaken and how discussions would be translated into real actions.

COP 20 should enhance the TEMs with a new and increased mandate to focus not just on high potential mitigation actions but also on means of implementation for realizing these actions.

COP 20 should capture contributions made, assess the adequacy of existing pledges, and discuss a future target level of annual contributions to the GCF to be reached, for example, by 2020.

COP 20 should decide that developed countries, and other countries in a position to do so, should continuously increase annual contributions to the GCF to reach the desired target level.

Ministers in Lima should agree to collectively draw up a global climate finance roadmap towards 2020 that will include information on (a) the scaling up of public finance through to 2020, (b) types and instruments of finance to be deployed, and (c) channels, sources and sectoral distribution between adaptation and mitigation, with a view to help ensure predictable and scaled up finance and intermediate milestones.

Ministers in Lima should reflect on more sustainable funding sources for the adaptation fund. Developed countries should use Lima to pledge at least $80 million to the adaptation fund.

The Structured Expert Dialogue (SED) should discuss the IPCC Synthesis report in light of ‘progress made towards achieving the ultimate objective of the convention’.

The Joint Contact Group (JCG) for the 2013-2015 Review should conclude that based on scientific evidence, pre 2020 actions as currently committed by governments are inadequate and should be revised.

A process to assess the adequacy and equitability of proposed INDCs in an ex-ante ambition assessment and equity review prior to COP 21.

Finance within the scope of INDCs.

Adaptation within INDCs, which could be voluntary though countries should be encouraged to put forward their adaptation contribution. Vulnerable developing countries should be supported in their preparation towards developing their contributions.

A greater role for civil society, local civil society and other stakeholders should be encouraged and empowered to assist in development of a nations’ INDC and countries should be encouraged to hold national consultations while preparing their INDCs.

A stipulation for countries to explain why the submitting country considers its contribution to be both adequate and equitable and therefore all countries should include information on equity indicators (adequacy, responsibility, capabilities, development need, adaptation need).

Decision text on elements of the 2015 agreement should include:

Long term global goals of phasing out all fossil fuel emissions and to phase in a 100% renewable energy future with sustainable energy access for all, as early as possible, but not later than 2050.

A collective commitment to shift public support (finance and policy) away from fossil fuels towards climate resilience and universal and fair access to sustainable energy.

Establishment of global goals for public finance.

An agreement to consider and establish/deploy new instruments and channels to mobilise additional international climate finance from new sources.

An agreement to adopt a robust and honest Measuring, Reporting and Verification (MRV) system for climate finance.

A decision to have an ambitious global adaptation goal within the 2015 agreement. The COP should also encourage and promote national adaptation planningand action in developing countries.

COP should adopt a strong 2-year work plan for theLoss and Damage mechanism.

A decision to establish a Capacity Building coordinating Body (CBCB) at COP-21 in Paris.

An enhanced role for civil society within all mechanismsestablished under the convention and in the agreements’ implementation and enforcement. Local civil society and other stakeholders should be able to participate actively in compliance and MRV processes within the new agreement.

Technology - The COP should recommend to the Advisory Board of the Climate Technology Centre and Network, to take into account the following activities: Providing advice, support and capacity building to developing country, conducting assessments of new and emerging technologies.

History was created when more than 400,000 people from all walks of life took to the streets of New York City in September to tell the world, ‘More Climate Action, Now’. COP 20 in Lima must be the turning point for political will from governments to reflect these ambitious calls by people from across the world.

At COP 17, Governments agreed to the Durban platform for enhanced action. Negotiations under the Durban platform will culminate in 2015 at COP 21 in Paris, where Parties are to agree to the next stage of a global climate agreement.

COP 20 in Lima holds the key to this next stage as it is set to define the parameters of this 2015 global agreement. The Lima COP, guided by the strong momentum for greater climate action and the recent IPCC scientific assessment, needs to steer political will to deliver decisions on the shape, composition and ambition of the 2015 agreement.

As Lima will set the foundations for the outcomes in Paris, Climate Action Network presents its views on issues that need to be addressed at COP 20 in order to set the right foundation for the 2015 agreement.

KEY DECISIONS TO BE TAKEN AT COP 20 -

FOR INCREASING PRE 2020 AMBITION ON MITIGATION AND FINANCE

COP 20 should urge all countries to revise their pre 2020 mitigation commitments and actions.

COP 20 should mandate ADP to develop a 2-year work plan from 2015-2017 with concrete steps on how the work to close the gap would be undertaken and how discussions would be translated into real actions.

COP 20 should enhance the TEMs with a new and increased mandate to focus not just on high potential mitigation actions but also on means of implementation for realizing these actions.

COP 20 should capture contributions made, assess the adequacy of existing pledges, and discuss a future target level of annual contributions to the GCF to be reached, for example, by 2020.

COP 20 should decide that developed countries, and other countries in a position to do so, should continuously increase annual contributions to the GCF to reach the desired target level.

Ministers in Lima should agree to collectively draw up a global climate finance roadmap towards 2020 that will include information on (a) the scaling up of public finance through to 2020, (b) types and instruments of finance to be deployed, and (c) channels, sources and sectoral distribution between adaptation and mitigation, with a view to help ensure predictable and scaled up finance and intermediate milestones.

Ministers in Lima should reflect on more sustainable funding sources for the adaptation fund. Developed countries should use Lima to pledge at least $80 million to the adaptation fund.

The Structured Expert Dialogue (SED) should discuss the IPCC Synthesis report in light of ‘progress made towards achieving the ultimate objective of the convention’.

The Joint Contact Group (JCG) for the 2013-2015 Review should conclude that based on scientific evidence, pre 2020 actions as currently committed by governments are inadequate and should be revised.

A process to assess the adequacy and equitability of proposed INDCs in an ex-ante ambition assessment and equity review prior to COP 21.

Finance within the scope of INDCs.

Adaptation within INDCs, which could be voluntary though countries should be encouraged to put forward their adaptation contribution. Vulnerable developing countries should be supported in their preparation towards developing their contributions.

A greater role for civil society, local civil society and other stakeholders should be encouraged and empowered to assist in development of a nations’ INDC and countries should be encouraged to hold national consultations while preparing their INDCs.

A stipulation for countries to explain why the submitting country considers its contribution to be both adequate and equitable and therefore all countries should include information on equity indicators (adequacy, responsibility, capabilities, development need, adaptation need).

Decision text on elements of the 2015 agreement should include:

Long term global goals of phasing out all fossil fuel emissions and to phase in a 100% renewable energy future with sustainable energy access for all, as early as possible, but not later than 2050.

A collective commitment to shift public support (finance and policy) away from fossil fuels towards climate resilience and universal and fair access to sustainable energy.

Establishment of global goals for public finance.

An agreement to consider and establish/deploy new instruments and channels to mobilise additional international climate finance from new sources.

An agreement to adopt a robust and honest Measuring, Reporting and Verification (MRV) system for climate finance.

A decision to have an ambitious global adaptation goal within the 2015 agreement. The COP should also encourage and promote national adaptation planningand action in developing countries.

COP should adopt a strong 2-year work plan for theLoss and Damage mechanism.

A decision to establish a Capacity Building coordinating Body (CBCB) at COP-21 in Paris.

An enhanced role for civil society within all mechanismsestablished under the convention and in the agreements’ implementation and enforcement. Local civil society and other stakeholders should be able to participate actively in compliance and MRV processes within the new agreement.

Technology - The COP should recommend to the Advisory Board of the Climate Technology Centre and Network, to take into account the following activities: Providing advice, support and capacity building to developing country, conducting assessments of new and emerging technologies.

While pre-2020 actions will determine a strong platform and foundation for the 2015 agreement, Governments are also deliberating on the shape, composition and ambition of the new agreement under work stream 1 of the ADP to come into action in 2020. Below are some of the issues CAN would like to see resolved by Governments at COP 20, in Lima.

KEY DECISIONS TO BE TAKEN AT COP 20 DEFINING THE SCOPE AND CONTENT OF THE 2015 AGREEMENT

A process to assess the adequacy and equitability of proposed INDCs in an ex-ante ambition assessment and equity review prior to COP 21.

Finance within the scope of INDCs.

Adaptation within INDCs, which could be voluntary though countries should be encouraged to put forward their adaptation contribution. Vulnerable developing countries should be supported in their preparation towards developing their contributions.

A greater role for civil society, local civil society and other stakeholders should be encouraged and empowered to assist in development of a nations’ INDC and countries should be encouraged to hold national consultations while preparing their INDCs.

A stipulation for countries to explain why the submitting country considers its contribution to be both adequate and equitable and therefore all countries should include information on equity indicators (adequacy, responsibility, capabilities, development need, adaptation need).

Decision text on elements of the 2015 agreement should include:

Long term global goals of phasing out all fossil fuel emissions and to phase in a 100% renewable energy future with sustainable energy access for all, as early as possible, but not later than 2050.

A collective commitment to shift public support (finance and policy) away from fossil fuels towards climate resilience and universal and fair access to sustainable energy.

Establishment of global goals for public finance.

An agreement to consider and establish/deploy new instruments and channels to mobilize additional international climate finance from new sources.

An agreement to adopt a robust and honest Measuring, Reporting and Verification (MRV) system for climate finance.

A decision to have an ambitious global adaptation goal within the 2015 agreement. The COP should also encourage and promote national adaptation planningand action in developing countries.

COP should adopt a strong 2-year work plan for theLoss and Damage mechanism.

A decision to establish a Capacity Building coordinating Body (CBCB) at COP-21 in Paris.

An enhanced role for civil society within all mechanismsestablished under the convention and in the agreements’ implementation and enforcement. Local civil society and other stakeholders should be able to participate actively in compliance and MRV processes within the new agreement.

Technology - The COP should recommend to the Advisory Board of the Climate Technology Centre and Network, to take into account the following activities: Providing advice, support and capacity building to developing country, conducting assessments of new and emerging technologies.

Currently, there is minimal guidance on the system for providing information on how REDD+ safeguards are being addressed and respected. Without further guidance, there are gaps and inconsistencies between reporting requirements, which could lead to unnecessary costs and inconveniences for countries fulfilling their REDD+ requirements.

Ultimately, without further guidance from the UNFCCC, there is a real risk that the SIS will fail to demonstrate that safeguards are being addressed and respected; and thus, result in significant negative social and environmental impacts and jeopardize the ability for REDD+ to mitigate climate change. Fortunately, if Parties agree to further guidance on the SIS at COP 20, there is opportunity to reduce the risk of negative impacts from REDD+ as well as produce positive outcomes, including adaptation outcomes. Therefore, there are important reasons for all Parties to support further guidance to support effective REDD+ implementation.

Further guidance is useful for REDD+ countries because:

It will assist developing country Parties to implement safeguards equitably and effectively;

It will assist countries without strong technical and financial capacities on how to design country approaches to implement and report on the safeguards;

It could simplify reporting formats and thus reduce the burden of reporting;

It would reduce the inconsistency and promote coherence between the multiple sets of requirements from the various multilateral funding initiatives for REDD+, thereby reducing the consequent and unnecessary costs and inconveniences of implementing and reporting on safeguards;

It could support countries in taking advantage of synergies with other international agreements (e.g. the Convention on Biological Diversity);

It could improve understanding and awareness among REDD+ stakeholders;

It could increase the amount of REDD+ funding available to REDD+ countries by providing greater assurance to potential REDD+ investors that safeguards have been addressed and respected;

It could support countries to apply safeguards systems that allow for adaptive management, leading to improvements in a country’s REDD+ program.

Further guidance is also useful for REDD+ funders because:

It could improve REDD+ safeguards implementation and lead to greater transparency, facilitating more effective investments that lead to improved results from REDD+;

It could better normalize the provision of safeguard information summaries, facilitating a more streamlined assessment;

It could provide greater confidence in REDD+ reporting, assisting investors in demonstrating their accountability to their domestic constituencies.

Therefore, CAN calls on Parties at COP 20 to develop additional guidance on the system for providing information on how the REDD+ safeguards are addressed and respected. If Parties rely on the current inadequate and vague guidance from Durban, they will both miss an opportunity and endanger the long-term success of the REDD+ mechanism.

A heartening moment occurred yesterday before an informal conversation on the coordination of support for REDD+. Many Parties, literally, stood side by side with NGOs and refused to enter the meeting room until the NGOs were also allowed in – which they eventually were. ECO thanks the Parties involved and hopes that this sort of Party-driven support for transparency will catch on.

About the Climate Action Network

The Climate Action Network (CAN) is a worldwide network of over 900 Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) in over 100 countries working to promote government and individual action to limit human-induced climate change to ecologically sustainable levels.

CAN members work to achieve this goal through information exchange and the coordinated development of NGO strategy on international, regional, and national climate issues. [+]